DBWI: Articles of Confederation dont lead to several american nations!

I think we can safely say that, had the United States remained together, they might well have found themselves at war with the French - relations seem to have cooled following the Wars of Independence, as we all know the 19th Century American were as hungry for land as a shark is for red meat, and the Louisiana Territory was the biggest & juiciest lump nearby. While Great Britain managed to snaffle New Orleans during the French Revolutionary Wars and quietly dominated the Gulf Coast thereafter* it's not impossible that the United States would have been able to get in there first with sufficient guns & grunts to keep John Bull out.

It is VAGUELY possible that His Majesty's Government could have made common cause with the United States against France (in much the same way we used the smaller American states as stalking horses to divert French assets from the defences of New Orleans), but it also seems highly probable that tensions between the Young Giant and Old England would have remained too high to permit an accommodation (especially if US hostility to GB became as much of a tradition as Ulster's political harassment of the United Province's central government).

*I wonder if the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Empire would have come sooner, had Great Britain not acquired a controlling interest in one of the larger slave markets in North America? Certainly control of the Mississippi Delta made it much easier to choke off the flow of slaves from the Caribbean into the South when the time came, but as we all all know THAT made the New Lancaster colony a target for every slave state in the area (not least because every runaway and would be rebel made New Oreleans their Medina).
 
I highly doubt america would have gone to war with france, the anti federalists were rabid pro french revolutionaries, whatever political parties arose from the nation, it would be vehemently pro french in a backlash against the federalists, who would likely be unable to retain power. assuming this, Its likely that the french would try to gain favor with the united states against the british, who the french and americans both had a vested interest in seeing taken down a peg. and with the french having helped the americans during the revolution, Napoleon could have offered the lousiana territory to the americans, for free or for a price, and depending on the president (the title of the executive position as outlined in the planned US constitution) a constitutional crises would arise hypothetically because in the planned constitution it makes no mention of the president, or the states, or the government, having the power to buy, or transfer, territories to the United States, and its unlikely the Anti Federalists would argue that this gigantic land and power grab by the central government is a good thing, unless of course, the president who takes the territory IS an anti federalist like, say, Jefferson or Madison, then youd have to deal with the political legacy of being a massive hypocrite!
 
So its likely either A. The US would be given lousiana, whether for a price or for free, by the french, maybe in exchange for support in the napoleonic wars? and yes i agree this may have led to an earlier end to slavery, the british were very very very pro abolitionist at the time, despite the kingdoms wishes, and i doubt a civil war in britain would erupt over this issue as it didnt actually help britain that much after the end of the 1700s
 
or B. The same thing that happens OTL happens, which means that the United States does not share a border with Mexico, meaning very likely that the United States doesnt get involved in the northern portions of mexico trying to secede, and Tejas and California become independent for a little bit as OTL, but are eventually retaken in the 1840s, and in the 1850s, the United States erupts into civil war, likely after northern politicians try to end the institution of slavery in the southern states, and its likely that the norths combined industrial might would have steamrolled the south, because the south would have no reason to industrialize like it did otl, and so the north would be the countries industrial epicenter!
 
The US would be given lousiana, whether for a price or for free, by the french, maybe in exchange for support in the napoleonic wars?

I sincerely doubt such a wide area of territory would have been given away for Free - even if it were howling wilderness at the time - and it seems difficult to credit that the cash strapped United States would have been able to afford the price L'Empreur would have demanded; having said that a Declaration of War on Great Britain might well have lowered the price tag to an acceptable level as quid pro quo (though His Imperial Majesty might have been wiser to request US support for his efforts to hold onto Haiti).
 
I sincerely doubt such a wide area of territory would have been given away for Free - even if it were howling wilderness at the time - and it seems difficult to credit that the cash strapped United States would have been able to afford the price L'Empreur would have demanded; having said that a Declaration of War on Great Britain might well have lowered the price tag to an acceptable level as quid pro quo (though His Imperial Majesty might have been wiser to request US support for his efforts to hold onto Haiti).
Napoleon was a raving mad man, so he might have wanted to sell the territory for a much smaller price than one would think, and i think your right, a war with great britain would really sweeten the deal for france. the issue is its unlikely america would have won this war, because the united states wouldnt yet have a formal military, so its likely that in the end, this ends with america losing, and maybe losing new england, or even losing nothing, as it would really piss off russia and prussia if britain carved out territories from america and didnt let them do the same in europe.
 
I wonder what would happen to lousiana?

Well, its possible that Britain still gets it as part of the peace deal after the Napoleonic Wars like they did in OTL. If they do though, there is definitely going to be another war - I can't imagine the United States wanting to get surrounded on all sides by its former colonial masters. In OTL there was a lot of tension about this - especially with settlers moving into the region against Britain's wishes and trying to set up independent 'Republics.' Burr's Republic of Vandalia was the most successful of these and it lasted for almost 80 years before Britain reconquered it, leading to all of those problems in the area today. Possible in a timeline with a united United States these efforts are even more successful and there are one or two settler territories set up. Or, maybe, the US manages to just conquer Louisiana outright.
 
I mean, remember the mexican empire wasnt exactly the greatest at its start, remember during the 1820s and 30s the northern parts of mexico were trying to secede, tejas and California
They wanted to secede because they were filled with US refugees from the War of the Worst that refused to assimilate. Without that godforsaken clusterfuck of a war, refugees wouldn’t be pouring in at a rate that threatened to break the country. While a United States would undoubtedly pose a threat to Mexico, the problems that caused Mexico trouble were a direct result of the instability to their east.

OOC: You’re new, so here are some things you need to know.

Double posting(or even quadruple posting like you did earlier) is very much frowned upon. If you have something else you want to say after you have already just posted, edit it in, like:

EDIT: just thought of this thing, here it is

Also, it’s considered bad form to accurately predict what would happen from real history in a DBWI. I say this cause of your reference to the Civil War that you got correct down to the decade.

It’s no big deal since you haven’t even been here a week, but just keep it in mind.
 
Top